[Ampersand] Bill Slavicsek on campaign settings

[D'karr]

Sadly, as pleasant as it is for individual gamers, this was the approach that killed TSR.

The approach that killed TSR was trying to support multiple settings at the same time with different products.

Once a year, a new setting with 3 books. The rest of the published material is all D&D material, which can be used in any setting. That is a big difference to what TSR was doing.

 

[Hussar]

It won't seem that way soon enough. With everything Core everything is needed to play the game by the "Official" rules. That was the great thing about 3.x Core Rules. The official policy of WotC was that you only needed the "Core" books to play. Now the official policy is that every book is Core including setting books and that players should buy all of them because all of them will have relevant information to every player. I would love WotC to come out and say that players will be fine just buying the PHB, but with them releasing a PHB2, PHB3, PHB4, PHB5, etc. I just don't see that. Now they expect players to buy 3 campaign books a year as well, including ones for settings they are not interested in because those books will have generic material useful to everyone. I might change my mind on the setting books if they republished the classes, powers, and feats from these books in later PHBs, but I don't see that happening.

Funny how people forget that this was precisely the situation prior to 3e. When every book INCLUDING Dragon was "core".

The 3e definition of core is not the 4e definition of core. Meanings change. Get over it.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

Funny how people forget that this was precisely the situation prior to 3e. When every book INCLUDING Dragon was "core".

The 3e definition of core is not the 4e definition of core. Meanings change. Get over it.

And I find the 3e definition much better than the 2e or 4E definition. The complicated nature of the glut of 2e books referencing each other was part of the 2E problem and part of the reason people were happy for 3E. Clean out the mass of products needed for the game and give players 3 core books which were all that were needed to play the game.

 

[Hussar]

And I find the 3e definition much better than the 2e or 4E definition. The complicated nature of the glut of 2e books referencing each other was part of the 2E problem and part of the reason people were happy for 3E. Clean out the mass of products needed for the game and give players 3 core books which were all that were needed to play the game.

However, the problem is, 3 three basic books have always been all you needed. But, that hasn't stopped players and DM's from buying all sorts of books and using them.

Considering that there have been at least as many 3e books published as 2e (and if you go with 3rd party publishers, 3e buries 2e by a considerable margin), claims to the necessity of only three core books seem to fall on deaf ears.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

As my point seems to be lost, and since it is dragging the conversation off target somewhat, I will bow out now at this point.

 

[kennew142]

If metaplot is gone in FR I will be ecstatic. I prefer to allow the plot of my own FR campaign to evolve as the players and I determine. One of the great things about Eberron is the absolute lack of a metaplot.

 

[nothing to see here]

The approach that killed TSR was trying to support multiple settings at the same time with different products.

Once a year, a new setting with 3 books. The rest of the published material is all D&D material, which can be used in any setting. That is a big difference to what TSR was doing.

I agree wholeheartedly. I was commenting on Yair's musings as opposed to the current WOTC strategy.

 

[nothing to see here]

Funny how people forget that this was precisely the situation prior to 3e. When every book INCLUDING Dragon was "core".

The 3e definition of core is not the 4e definition of core. Meanings change. Get over it.

Outside of the defined boundaries that are used for tournaments and whatnot, I doubt WOTC spends a whole lot of time in knots figuring out what is "core". From a business standpoint, my guess would be they tell you everything they produce is core.

Attempty to apply standards of Canonical purity to the minutae of pop culture is just another little quirk of geekdom. When it comes to making, producing, marketing, or actyually PLAYING game it matters little and will never compensate for the quality of the players and DM.

 

[Wormwood]

If metaplot is gone in FR I will be ecstatic. I prefer to allow the plot of my own FR campaign to evolve as the players and I determine.

Just give me a blank spot on the map called "Sembia" and I'll be pleased as punch.

/Sembian Peace Wall

 

[Michele Carter]

Heh. Henry (and others): considering Bill's well-known fondness for Dark Sun, there's no question that it's at the top of the list for consideration. We've been thinking about ALL of our worlds and how they'd best be presented with the new edition.

Dronehound: v. good thinking re: Birthright. I'm on the same page.

Of course, I remain a Planescape advocate. And Al-Qadim is dear to me as well.

Can't do everything at once, but it's all on the list!